Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:10:06 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 07:39:17, Mark Taylor wrote: >In null move, (as I understand it- please correct me if I'm wrong), a player >misses a move (i.e. lets the opponent play 2 moves in succession), and if no >significant change in the eval occurs then further searching from that node is >abandoned (on the basis that if you can up a move without suffering then your >position must be solid)? If you give a guy a free punch at you, and he can't cause any significant damage, perhaps this is a good predictor of the outcome of the fight, and you can avoid it. >My question is this - being forced to make a move in Chess can be disastrous in >certain positions (esp. in the endgame), and in this type of position misleading >results would be obtained. This is correct. That is why it is not done in the endgame. >It seems to me that a better approach would be to make a single move (any move) >rather than no move at all - the resulting tree would be the same size and >therefore the overheads should not be that much greater. You are trying to figure out if they have any threats even if you put up no defense. Making a move might either create a defense or wreck your position, so it would inject a degree of uncertainty into the whole thing. In practice null move will make any program much better tactically, at almost no cost. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.